[Ryokan]

Whoa....since this is in regards to Caravaggio, we must remember that artists during this time were successful if they had notable commissions or also had a total school of. The paintings we know of Caravaggio is that he was really successful in Naples. I don't know if there was a time that art critics looked down on him, but he had successful commissions during his life, and at least in my art history classes, he was always referenced as another stage in tenebrism.

It took quite a while for his work to be re-evaluated as around the 19th century two influential critics - John Ruskin and Roger Fry had both managed to sway popular thought on his works.

 

[Davesrose]

It took quite a while for his work to be re-evaluated as around the 19th century two influential critics - John Ruskin and Roger Fry had both managed to sway popular thought on his works.

Well at least during his age, Caravaggio did easily secure commissions and wasn't a starving artist. Art criticism towards the 19th century was way off from his death. We know popular opinion of an artist might change over time (again, easy example being Vermeer).

 

[Ryokan]

Well at least during his age, Caravaggio did easily secure commissions and wasn't a starving artist. Art criticism towards the 19th century was way off from his death. We know popular opinion of an artist might change over time (again, easy example being Vermeer).

I've always thought someone critiquing, especially a famous painter from a different era, should be asked if they can paint better themselves and demonstrate how it should be done.

Another amazing painter was Jan Van Eyck from an even earlier time, not many of his paintings exist today.

​

 

[Davesrose]

I've always thought someone critiquing, especially a famous painter from a different era, should be asked if they can paint better themselves and demonstrate how it should be done.

I'd really recommend catching "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?" if you can. It does bring up evaluating a painting that could be a Pollock from science, to art critic, to art forger perspective. They interviewed an art forger who did pass millions worth of different artists. When he looked at the photo of this particular painting he said he couldn't have created it (he also said that he wouldn't have attempted Pollock because he was so unique and with his state of being really drunk). I thought also funny was the critics: those who aren't artists and easier to dismiss (vs Pollock's friend who was more open about it "maybe" being Pollock).

Edit: Jan Van Eyck....yeah, he's earlier time period. So my take home as an art major was that he was really revolutionary in perspective: especially during his time period.

 

[Steve999]

I asked Google’s Bard AI chatbot whether 4’33” was music and this is what it said:

Whether or not John Cage's 4'33" is music is a matter of opinion. Some people believe that it is not music because it does not contain any traditional musical elements, such as melody, harmony, or rhythm. Others believe that it is music because it is a work of art that uses sound to create an experience for the listener.

Cage himself said that 4'33" was "not a piece of silence, but a piece of music that is nothing but silence." He believed that the piece was a way to focus the listener's attention on the sounds of the environment, and to appreciate the beauty of everyday sounds.

Ultimately, whether or not you consider 4'33" to be music is up to you. If you are open to new experiences and are willing to suspend your expectations, you may find that it is a rewarding piece of music.

 

[bigshot]

OMG! Googling this gives 500.000.000 links about Sound of Silence and/or Simon and Garfunkel it seems

Yeah google is useless for most things. I looked it up, it's Knidage Riisiger's Qarrtsiluni. He described the piece as "sounding silence". I have a recording of it I can post if you're interested. (Hint: it isn't silence)

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Do you have to keep pooping on this thread?

my pooping is negligible compared to all the bs that comes out of gregorio.

 

[bigshot]

This is a fun thread. It's gone from one thing to another, but it has all of us scratching our heads!

 

[Steve999]

I asked Google’s Bard AI chatbot if cormorants poach eggs and it said:

No, cormorants do not poach eggs. Poaching is a cooking method that involves submerging food in simmering water or other liquid. Cormorants are birds that are not known to cook food. They are fish-eaters, and they typically catch their prey by diving underwater.

The phrase "poached eggs" is sometimes used figuratively to describe something that is easily obtained or taken without permission. This may be where the idea that cormorants poach eggs comes from. However, there is no evidence to suggest that cormorants actually do this.

 

[Ryokan]

This is a fun thread. It's gone from one thing to another, but it has all of us scratching our heads!

“I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.”

Douglas Adams.

 

[gregorio]

Whether or not John Cage's 4'33" is music is a matter of opinion.

It’s not really a matter of opinion. Cage’s works (including 4’33”) are an accepted part of the history of western music. In fact an important and highly influential part, as sub-genres of western classical music grew out of it and it’s not rationally arguable to assert these musical movements do not exist. An individual can have their own opinion of what music is, and whether 4’33” therefore fulfils thier personal opinion/definition but of course that does not affect the actual historical facts.

Some people believe that it is not music because it does not contain any traditional musical elements, such as melody, harmony, or rhythm.

Which is a fallacious argument because 4’33” does contain a traditional musical element. For many centuries, “rests”, “G.P.” (Grand Pausa) and “Tacit” have been traditional musical elements. And, the other traditional elements of melody, harmony and rhythm were being broken down and/or entirely discarded long before 4’33” was composed.

my pooping is negligible compared to all the bs that comes out of gregorio.

You have demonstrated numerous times the belief that facts, both scientific and historical facts, are BS/“poop” and ignorance isn’t. So on that warped basis you are right, your scientific/historical facts (pooping) are indeed negligible and all the scientific/historical facts (you call “BS”) that come out of me isn’t negligible. So, thanks for the compliment!

G

 

[bigshot]

It’s not really a matter of opinion. Cage’s works (including 4’33”) are an accepted part of the history of western music.

Appeal to authority! Bandwagon argument!

The absence of sound isn't music. My argument here isn't that hard to understand. But you're reacting to it as if I'm saying something profoundly wrong. In fact, you're amplifying your arguments using exaggerated terms and argumentativeness. I think you might want to consider that perhaps you engage in some of the things that you accuse others of occasionally. That's fine. Nobody's perfect. But you should have the self awareness to know when you're straying off track and curb your desire to totally control the discussion.

Now I'll lighten the mood with a topical humorous reference... John Cage's 4'33" was an April Fool's joke that some folks weren't bright enough to recognize as an April Fool's joke.

But if you want to believe that this really is the "best of Marcel Marceao" feel free!

https://www.discogs.com/release/14540508-Marcel-Marceao-The-Best-Of-Marcel-Marceao

 

[VNandor]

Just say it already. What definition of music classifies 4'33'' as such? I'm assuming you are aware of the fact the one brought up doesn't do it.

 

[bigshot]

My definition is broader than the typical definition. I consider music to be "expressive organized sound". Webster defines it as... vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

 

[VNandor]

I was specifically asking gregorio and the people who call it music. I could see it falling under music with that broader definition though. The only word on that definition that's not wishy-washy is sound. I think "expressive and organized" could be twisted to mean just about anything in this context.